3070 issues

[Kaythree]

I have been happy with my EVGA 3070 but lately it is obvious that 3070 owners may have been duped. 

I get awful stutters and 1% lows while playing the Dead Space remake. I don't even want to attempt to try and play Hogwart's Legacy. 
I hoped the 3070 would be a good card for 1440p, the 3080s at the time were in the 800+ dollar range which I couldn't justify. 

I was seeing that on DSR it would use 7.5gb of VRAM on average so I lowered it down to 1080, fine whatever i'm sure it will look good still and now I was at 7.1gb 

Honestly feel like this is ridiculous and I do not want to upgrade my GPU, anyone else just beyond frustrated? I know some 3080 owners are feeling the same way with 10gb not being enough for 4K. But is this just a problem we have to get over and how can I improve the stutters in these games? 

[Alinz]

37 minutes ago, Dean0919 said:

I knew 3070 wouldn't be enough for 1440p

in most games the 3070 is a perfectly fine 1440p card, being capable of delivering high frameramte 1440p gaming (comming from personal experience).

The problem inst the core at all, its a vram limmitation and reading your post you know that too, but then again, only in certain games. If you play a wide selection of games the 3070 is a great card in my opinion. A 3060 can even beat a 3080 10GB in Hogwarts Legacy at 1080p ultra settings. (guess that 12gb model is good for something lol)

 

38 minutes ago, Dean0919 said:

Some people would argue with me that this card is too good for 1080p

I would argue this yes. CPU bottlenecks, I just don't see everyone picking up the best of the best CPU (13900ks/5800X3D) for 1080p gaming to eleviate the bottleneck as much as possible. Yes, there are some really demanding titles where the 3080 would be fine at 1080 and hitting high utilisation, but for the majority of games the card doesn't make a ton of sence in my opinion.

 

[jaslion]

Lower texture quality and it will be fine again.

 

Been saying this forever but nvidia has historically had the trend of adding less vram to save money on their cards.

 

My favorite example staya the hd 7970 vs gtx 680. At launch the 680 was faster but 5 years later the hd7970 started being faster, 7 years later that 680 could barely game anymore due to only being a 2gb card but the 7970 stayed relevant simplt due to having 3gb and this made it be good enough for gaming for another3-4 years.

 

Amd made the mistake with their weird fury lineup and it bit them in the ass as the performance of those carsa was actually quite good but the vram slowed them down.

 

They once again started adding more and thus the rx580 8gb for example is once again becoming a very long lived card.

 

They also made it so that all their current cards have at worst the same amount of vram as the one they are competing with. The only exception being the rtx 3060 12gb and the 4090.

 

It sucks that good cards are gimped by the lack of vram and I wish that wasnt the case.

[Alinz]

Well, from personal experience I cant agree.

I've played plenty demanding games at 2k res and where super happy with it, I guess we won't be able to see eye to eye on this one and thats fine. Sure, if you are only playing the latest and greatest it might not be the and all and be all, I agree on you on that front (especialy RT, but then again the 3070 wasn't a great choice for RT IMO)

 

Games I've personally had great 2k experiences with are:

RDR2, HZD, Black dessert online, Borderland 3, Far Cry 5, control, SOTR.

 

Sure, some titles aren't the most demanding but they all ran great non the less. So for me it was a great card, due to me playing a wide selection of games.

 

[Bismut]

2 hours ago, Dean0919 said:

Some people would argue with me that this card is too good for 1080p, but I disagree with these people, because I know how demanding games are becoming day by day and his 3080 will last longer on his 1080p monitor

That's called future proofing and a fool's errand. I will always recommend to buy what you need, especially with a GPU. Lower tier cards draw less power and generally offer better price to performance, and swapping a GPU is just about the easiest thing you can do with a computer.

 

1 hour ago, Dean0919 said:

Lower the texture quality and you're good to go.

Yup, my 970 is still sorta chugging along at 1440p because I set  everything to low. I really do need to upgrade my GPU, but it does work.

[porina]

1 hour ago, jaslion said:

Lower texture quality and it will be fine again.

This. And/or try DLSS if supported.

[xAcid9]

2 hours ago, Dean0919 said:

Video cards get old (weak) quickly. 

In 3070 case, it's because of the 8GB VRAM. It still a powerful GPU imo. 

 

2 hours ago, Dean0919 said:

For example, this new patch for Witcher 3 game... In DirectX 12 mode, even without ray tracing enabled, I can't get stable 75 fps.

None in those screenshots your GPU hit >90% usage, 3080 is not the reason you getting low fps in Witcher 3.

[Mark Kaine]

4 hours ago, Kaythree said:

But is this just a problem we have to get over and how can I improve the stutters in these games? 

8GB VRAM wasnt enough since at least 5 years, so with a bit of research this could have been avoidable -- although admittedly difficult because people who drank the nvidia coolaid have always been very quick to say "games dont use more than 4GB lol" -- how to improve it? Use the ingame settings so it uses less Vram, usually textures and lighting use the most -- you can simply start by setting everything to low and gradually up the settings until you hit 6GB or so -- afterburner can show dedicated vram usage in real time,  in case you have a shovelware game that doesn't show Vram usage (i guess those still exist for some reason??)

And in my experience really you don't want to go above ~6.5GB usage because there might be spikes, plus background processes could use some Vram as well.

 

Lastly, make sure to check CPU usage as well, for each core, to make sure there isn't a CPU limitation either, kind of sounds like that could be happening also (btw there isnt really a fix for a CPU bottleneck in most cases other than buying a better one, so hope its not CPU, which unlike GPU limitations is hard to impossible to fix without new hardware) 

 

as a reference here's how i set up afterburner overlay (it was a bit tedious, but at least it has the functionality) 

 

 

<-- check "dedicated" (Vram) specifically 

 

GPU: RTX 3070 CPU: 5800X3D (1440p) 

ps: dont take this is a reference for Vram usage, its just a reference for how i set up afterburner overlay. 

[Eigenvektor]

35 minutes ago, Kaythree said:

But is this just a problem we have to get over and how can I improve the stutters in these games? 

Essentially, yes. You can improve the situation to some degree by turning down graphics settings.

 

That's precisely why "future proofing" is not a thing. You have no idea how hardware requirements of games are going to change. If you go for 4K with high refresh rate its pretty much a commitment to always stay on the latest and greatest hardware.

 

With newer games only targeting e.g. PS5 instead of PS4/5 expect requirements to go up. Once the generation is more mature, PC hardware will catch up and requirements may stagnate until PS6 etc comes out.

[jaslion]

2 hours ago, xAcid9 said:

In 3070 case, it's because of the 8GB VRAM. It still a powerful GPU imo. 

The 6700xt is a prime example. Similar performance but simply does better by having 12gb of vram

[Mark Kaine]

2 hours ago, Eigenvektor said:

That's precisely why "future proofing" is not a thing.

imo this is precisely (eh) why future proofing is a thing.

 

For example i listened to "internet experts" saying a 2200G is good enough even for use with dGPU, because "games don't use more than 2-4 cores anyways, lol" ... better choice would have been to wait a few months for 3600... which i ended up buying anyways since the 2200G was much too weak/slow to even drive a 1060... 

 

 

And likewise buying a GPU with only 8GB wasn't a good idea since 2016 or so... because already then some games would require more for max textures/ lighting... the only surprising thing is how long it took the "internet experts" to let it sink in that "games don't use more than 2-4GB anyway " just because all they do is play decades old poorly optimized first person  shooters that don't make use of modern hardware, was always nonsense. 

 

So it boils down to yes you can very much "future proof" things, but you'll have to pay more upfront  - with the benefit that you overall most likely spend less.

 

like, honestly if someone "upgrades" during the same generation, that means they obviously did something wrong (or didn't have enough money, which well, it can happen...) because its really not necessary especially if they could resist the urge to jump on the "early adopter train" which just means they'll probably have to spend double than necessary for a worse experience than someone who waits for the first "refresh" at least.

 

i just don't know where this "cant future proof" even comes from, it seems more like a justification to buy as much superfluous hardware as possible in many cases.

 

you had to know since at least 5 years that 8GB is really meager for maxing out stuff at high performance... just because there weren't many games that used as much necessarily doesn't mean they didn't exist. 

 

ex: Monster Hunter World (2018) had minimum requirements 8GB vram for "high resolution textures" and was hardly the first game to do so, but should have been a wakeup call (for the "internet experts")

 

 

yes, you could totally get away with 6GB and lower settings, and experience the occasional "odd" stutters,  but to really play it properly and smoothly you needed at least something like a 1070, simply due to Vram requirements. 

 

 

So yeah, the only surprising thing is how long it took to become more widespread,  nvidia holding back graphics since forever™...~

 

 

Tldr: future proofing is the sensible thing to do, beginner mistake not to, and pc market isn't exactly unpredictable since it's going slower than glacier pace and with increasingly high power usage due to inability of manufacturers to get around the silicone limit (which was only predicted 30 odd years ago already) so you better get a 1500w psu too.

 

 

2 hours ago, Eigenvektor said:

instead of PS4/5 expect requirements to go up. Once the generation is more mature, PC hardware will catch up and requirements may stagnate until PS6 etc comes out.

this is a good baseline actually,  make sure your pc beats current gen consoles handily in every aspect, should be good for at least 5 years...

[Eigenvektor]

4 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

Tldr: future proofing is the sensible thing to do, beginner mistake not to, and pc market isn't exactly unpredictable since it's going slower than glacier pace and with increasingly high power usage due to inability of manufacturers to get around the silicone limit (which was only predicted 30 odd years ago already) so you better get a 1500w psu too.

Maybe I should've worded things slightly differently. I'm not arguing against buying hardware that has some breathing room. Do buy hardware that can comfortably play your current games at max settings and where you have some reasonable expectation that it'll last a few years. And maybe have a look at current gen console specs…

 

However, you should never expect it to be "future proof", no matter how much you spend. There will always come a time when you will have to make sacrifices in terms of graphical settings. Sometimes sooner, sometimes later. Buy a 4090 right now, expect it to last 10 years and be disappointed when the 5090 comes out and your $2000 card can't run DLSS 4.

 

Imho there's a middle ground between spending too little and having to upgrade 6 months down the line and spending too much only to never actually need it.

[Mark Kaine]

32 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

Maybe I should've worded things slightly differently. I'm not arguing against buying hardware that has some breathing room. Do buy hardware that can comfortably play your current games at max settings and where you have some reasonable expectation that it'll last a few years. And maybe have a look at current gen console specs…

 

However, you should never expect it to be "future proof", no matter how much you spend. There will always come a time when you will have to make sacrifices in terms of graphical settings. Sometimes sooner, sometimes later. Buy a 4090 right now, expect it to last 10 years and be disappointed when the 5090 comes out and your $2000 card can't run DLSS 4.

 

Imho there's a middle ground between spending too little and having to upgrade 6 months down the line and spending too much only to never actually need it.

well yeah, to me "future proof" means 5-10 years (i had my last pc from 2007 -2017 incidentally,  never upgraded during that time either) but more realistically 5 years. its not called "forever proof", but yeah this time frame will vary, and for people who always want the newest thing this obviously won't work - they always need the newset thing, its called FOMO - fear of missing out. 

[Ripred]

12 hours ago, Kaythree said:

I have been happy with my EVGA 3070 but lately it is obvious that 3070 owners may have been duped. 

I get awful stutters and 1% lows while playing the Dead Space remake. I don't even want to attempt to try and play Hogwart's Legacy. 
I hoped the 3070 would be a good card for 1440p, the 3080s at the time were in the 800+ dollar range which I couldn't justify. 

I was seeing that on DSR it would use 7.5gb of VRAM on average so I lowered it down to 1080, fine whatever i'm sure it will look good still and now I was at 7.1gb 

Honestly feel like this is ridiculous and I do not want to upgrade my GPU, anyone else just beyond frustrated? I know some 3080 owners are feeling the same way with 10gb not being enough for 4K. But is this just a problem we have to get over and how can I improve the stutters in these games? 

7.5GB? I only have 5.9  I slammed in a X3D and HA _ what stutter lol, I am a little scared to try deadspace though...

Ill get more Vram one day 

 

 

[Ripred]

20 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

well yeah, to me "future proof" means 5-10 years (i had my last pc from 2007 -2017 incidentally,  never upgraded during that time either) but more realistically 5 years. its not called "forever proof", but yeah this time frame will vary, and for people who always want the newest thing this obviously won't work - they always need the newset thing, its called FOMO - fear of missing out. 

Future proof is a dirty word, Maybe future buffer, or future headroom would be better..

[xAcid9]

9 hours ago, Dean0919 said:

Disagree that 3070 is a powerful card. Also vram problem can be easily fixed by lowering textures and AA mode.

 

It's a video card, because CPU is also not loaded fully and lowering the video settings improved fps, speaks that it's a video card which is struggling in my case.

3070 can still run many games on 1440p@60fps with high/ultra settings.

Poorly optimized driver or unoptimized p.o.s games like DX12 Witcher 3, Forspoken, etc shouldn't make it less powerful. 

 

If the GPU percentage in your screenshot refer to GPU load and not GPU fan speed, then your GPU is not maxing out. It is as simple as that.

Your CPU is technically max out as many games don't tap into logical cores or simply limited to 6 physical cores.

Some graphic settings affect CPU load as well like draw distance, shadows. 

[SteveGrabowski0]

On 2/13/2023 at 2:29 AM, jaslion said:

Lower texture quality and it will be fine again.

 

Been saying this forever but nvidia has historically had the trend of adding less vram to save money on their cards.

 

My favorite example staya the hd 7970 vs gtx 680. At launch the 680 was faster but 5 years later the hd7970 started being faster, 7 years later that 680 could barely game anymore due to only being a 2gb card but the 7970 stayed relevant simplt due to having 3gb and this made it be good enough for gaming for another3-4 years.

5 years later? More like two. I remember by mid 2014 the R9 280 (the HD 7950 refresh) being faster than the GTX 770 (the 680 refresh) in most games. Much less comparing to the HD 7970 / R9 280x.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Hell even three months after the GTX 680 launch the HD 7970 GHz edition was beating the 680 at 1600p and 1200p

 

 

[jaslion]

52 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Hell even three months after the GTX 680 launch the HD 7970 GHz edition was beating the 680 at 1600p and 1200p

 

 

Thats the ghz which came out after the 680 as a response. The stock 7970 showed it's performance later.

[SteveGrabowski0]

17 minutes ago, jaslion said:

Thats the ghz which came out after the 680 as a response. The stock 7970 showed it's performance later.

Here's it within 1% of the 680 at 1600p in early 2014

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-gtx-750-ti/25.html

 

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, xAcid9 said:

3070 can still run many games on 1440p@60fps with high/ultra settings.

Poorly optimized driver or unoptimized p.o.s games like DX12 Witcher 3, Forspoken, etc shouldn't make it less powerful. 

on the other hand my point is really always that 16GB should have been standard for a while as its overall holding graphics back (until now at least) because games clearly could have used more high quality textures/ lighting since a long time.

 

I guess "RTX" was supposed to kinda alleviate this, but it's not a great solution/ replacement imo (more like a huge marketing bubble) 

[SteveGrabowski0]

23 minutes ago, jaslion said:

Thats the ghz which came out after the 680 as a response. The stock 7970 showed it's performance later.

 

By September 2014 the 7970 had overtaken the 680 at 1440p

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/msi-gtx-970-gaming/27.html

 

 

By January 2015 even at 1080p the 7970 was outclassing the 680

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/asus-gtx-960-strix-oc/29.html

 

[SteveGrabowski0]

Looks like I misremembered on the 280 outclassing the 770 though in 2014, that was the 280x.

[Mark Kaine]

12 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Looks like I misremembered on the 280 outclassing the 770 though in 2014, that was the 280x.

tbf its techpowerup ie. "fantasy stats"